RE: Best Practices document - not best practices

Off the cuff idea but what are the chances for creating a new 'mobile protocol' so instead of having the 'http://' suffix we can use 'mob://'  ?
 
Or would this be too hard to implement as it could potentially mean a lot of exisitng browsers would not understand the new suffix?
 
I am personally against anything that increases the length of the URL you have to type into a phone ( eg: sub directories http://something.com/mobile ) because phone keyboards are a pain to use due to their size and they will probably remain tiny for the foreseable future.
 
Getting back on track - if it is possible to provide a new protocol for mobile content then it would be equally feasible to provide a new protocol to define the 'summary' content or 'full' content as discussed previously.
 
Marcus Saw.
http://cellsuite.blogspot.com


Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com> wrote:

Finding a standard naming scheme might be a problem. Not everyone speaks english :)

Yet it is technically possible to do so, and maybe we could even convince webmasters to follow.

However, would it not be better if you could communicate your preference for "detailed", "summary", etc. using a different mechanism? User preferences are supposed to be one of the things that CC/PP vocabularies could capture. I could then just use the http://news.bbc.co.uk/ URL without any path, and my preference information would immediately tell the site how I would like the home page to be represented. The CC/PP information would also indicate the properties of my device, so the site could now offer me a representation of the page that fits both my specific requirements and the consgtraints imposed by the device I am using.

Of course, in practice, things like CC/PP are not sufficiently well supported to enable this to work (yet) so we could look for an interim solution based on URL paths. Unlike paths, the benefit of using a method like CC/PP is that you don't have to choose arbitrary names.

What if we decided the words in the path would be in Gaelic? I'd have no problem understanding what http://news.bbc.co.uk/ceannlinte/ meant, but would you?

OK, perhaps we go international and use Esperanto. Would http://news.bbc.co.uk/resumo/ make sense?

Putting things into the URL doesn't always help, even if it seems like a good idea at the start.

---Rotan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Crevola [mailto:andrea.crevola@3juice.com]
Sent: 08 August 2005 14:18
To: public-bpwg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Best Practices document - not best practices





Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/detailed/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/summary/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/bite-sized/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/headlines/
> 

I think that you are right: only two thoughts:

1) following this idea, we need - I suppose - is a sort of standard for 
naming sub-folders (or sub-domains). One reason for that is avoiding 
that every webmaster defines his set of *versions*... so our user may 
find more quickly the version tailored for him.

2) we need a mechanism (technical or logical) that could let the user be 
aware of the quantity and the quality of information that is behind 
these urls. At the moment - I think, but that's my opinion - the word 
"mobile" gives a - rude - idea of the amount of text, images ecc. So, 
how we can mantain this suggestion using other words?

Are these arguments have something to do with best practices in mobile 
websites?

Andrea




		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail